accreditation and quality assurance in europe prof. dr. dirk van damme

Accreditation and quality assurance in Europe

Prof. Dr. Dirk Van Damme

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 2

Overview

The concept of accreditation

Accreditation as merging of recognition and quality assurance

Quality: shifting concepts and approaches

Accreditation: the context and functions

Accreditation: risks and questions

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 3

The concept of ‘accreditation’

‘ad-credere’: giving credit, trust to someone, a service, …

norms of quality, security, safeness, … ’standards’on the basis of independent and expert reviewpublic statementmarket access (trustworthiness) and transparency (standardisation)

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 4

The concept of ‘accreditation’

‘Accreditation is a formal and public statement by an independent agency and on the basis of an external quality review, that specific, previously agreed standards are met by a programme or institution of higher education’

consequences: ‘approval’, ‘recognition’, funding, state recognition of qualifications, …

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 5

The concept of ‘accreditation’

components:formal and public statementof binary natureby competent authorities‘ex post’ or ‘ex ante’previously agreed standards (basic or excellence)after independent and expert quality reviewof programme or institution (or intermediate)restricted time validity

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 6

Accreditation: recognition x QA

Recognition in (continental) Europestate recognition of institutions, programmes and qualifications‘a priori’ decision by Parliament or Governmentinput criteria: curriculum, qualified personnel, …state recognition of ‘effectus civilis’ of qualifications, also giving access to professions in public sector

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 7

Accreditation: recognition x QA

Quality assurancenew regulatory system emerging since the late eightiesseparate from recognitionfocus on improvement, but with increasing importance of accountability function

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 8

Accreditation: recognition x QA

Quality assuranceexternal drivers probably more powerful than internal ‘autonomous’ demand• massification and concerns for a potential

decline of standards• diminishing confidence of stake-holders in

traditional academic quality management• increasing demand for more accountability• public demand for transparency (ranking)• pressures to increase cost-effectiveness

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 9

Accreditation: recognition x QAre

gula

tion

time

accreditation

recognition

quality assurance

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 10

Accreditation: recognition x QA  Discipline Programme Institution Theme

Evaluation 6 1 1 6

Accredi-tation

21 20 5 7

Audit 12 10 14 4

Bench-marking

10 0 1 4

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 11

Accreditation: recognition x QA

still other forms of QA than accreditationthere are still recognition systems that do not rely on QAbut there is a growing interconnection and even merging of both regulatory systemsin this process, also the concept of quality itself has changed

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 12

Quality: shifting concepts and approaches

two dimensions:low – highabsolute – externally/internally relative

four approachesexcellence standardsfitness for purposebasic standardsconsumer satisfaction

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 13

high

low

inte

rnal

ly

rela

tive

basicstandards

excellence standards

absolutefitness for purpose

consumer satisfaction

externally relative

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 14

Quality: shifting concepts and approaches

Quality is a multi-dimensional conceptChanging definitionsAny particular definition of quality at a given time-space configuration is function of interaction of those four componentsImportance of social context

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 15

Accreditation: the context and functions

Criticisms of first generation QA systemsexternally imposed, not embedded in real institutional ‘quality culture’; still high tolerance for low quality in institutions

bureaucratic overload, impact on autonomy, cost

methodological weaknesses: benchmarking, self-referential teams, window-dressing, insufficient critical nature, role of disciplines, etc.

conservatism, ‘canonisation’ vs innovation

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 16

Changing environment provokes shift …from egalitarian massification to a more competitive higher education marketfrom domestic focus to internationalisation and globalisationtowards differentiation in institutions and delivery modesfrom meritocracy to lifelong learning, eroding the only left monopoly, degrees

Accreditation: the context and functions

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 17

towards next generation of QA arrangementsproviding clear statements on an increasingly complex realityguaranteeing transparency and convergence in a more diversified and international environmentbroadening focus while keeping up same concept of ‘academic quality’emphasizing external functions while stressing autonomy, self-regulation and inclusiveness

Accreditation: the context and functions

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 18

accreditation is expected to address some of the needs and to fulfil following functions:

guaranteeing that agreed standards are metmore independent, clear, sharp, benchmarked quality statementsstrengthening international functions, transparent student information and accountabilitylinking QA to recognition and other regulatory systems

Accreditation: the context and functions

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 19

accreditation thus implies a shift in the triangle of power in HE towards market relationsbut, accreditation still may be seen as a regulatory system in the middle of the power triangle

Accreditation: the context and functions

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 20

Accreditation

(Intl) MarketAcademia

State

recognition

accreditation

quality assurance ranking

Bern, 29 April 2004 Dirk Van Damme 21

Accreditation: risks and questions

Still continuing debate on accreditationdo we need it in developed HE systems?fixed standards in a complex, diversifying, dynamic reality?rewarding mainstream and mediocrity; jeopardising improvement functions by stressing accountability?additional bureaucratic burden to institutions and academics, sign of distrust?